Matinicus and Criehaven Sustainable Energy System

Our islands have several challenges in maintaining sustainable communities. Energy is expensive, and will almost certainly get more expensive. I estimate the two islands spend between one and two million dollars a year for energy – diesel, gasoline, heating oil, propane, and electricity. Over the next 20 years, if energy prices do not go up much, we will be spending about $40 million. And we are sending a lot of that money to people who don't like us.

We are lucky to be in a Zone 6 wind area, which the Department of Energy calls “outstanding”. If only we could use some of that wind to meet all our energy needs....

NH3 (anhydrous ammonia) is a potential fuel. It can be used in internal combustion engines with some modifications. It could also be used as a propane replacement for stoves and heaters. It burns to H2O (water vapor) and nitrogen gas, and has no greenhouse or ozone-depleting effects.

NH3 can be made from air, salt water, and electricity. If we have some powerful wind turbines, we could use the electricity to make NH3 and power the Matinicus grid. When the wind is light, we use some of the NH3 in a generator to make electricity. Most of the NH3 would be used as fuel for the lobster fleet, and some could be used for other purposes, such as cooking. In the windy winter, when there is a lot of electricity, some of the (excess) electricity can be used for heating economically.

I estimate we use about 400,000 gallons of fuel a year. Ten percent of that is used for producing electricity on Matinicus. We would need between four and five megawatts of power to produce the equivalent of 400,000 gallons of fuel. For comparison, the Fox Islands Coop's three turbines have a capacity of 4.5 megawatts.

The Fox Island project cost about $15 million dollars. A rough estimate of an NH3 plant is about $10 million, so the total might be $25 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but so is the $40 million we will probably spend over the next 20 years.

A wind-turbine NH3 facility would essentially lock in our energy cost for the next 20 years. My very rough figures indicate an equivalent cost of about $3.00/gallon for NH3 production, so in the very short term we would not be saving money. However, almost all the cost of production is fixed, so in ten years, the cost would probably be only $3.30 per gallon, and in 20 years $3.60.

Predicting future energy prices is a crap shoot. My forecast is that energy will be going up for several reasons.  1) “Peak oil” theories strongly show that we are not discovering new oil supplies nearly as fast as we are consuming them, and that we are using up the easy-to-refine, easy-to-pump resources. Some people say that Saudi Arabia may be a oil importer by 2035.  2) The US is the only oil importing country with the price of gasoline under $5.00. Gasoline has been over $5.00 in Europe for a decade. I do not see any way we will be able to continue with cheap gas.  3) Washington is intent on raising the cost of fossil fuels, whether by cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or other mechanisms.  4) The US dollar will suffer from significant inflation, so the price of oil will rise as other countries, like China and India, buy oil with strong currencies.  5) Petroleum is heavily subsidized in the US. See my posts about subsidized petroleum at lhttp://krementz.blogspot.com/2009/12/oil-is-subsidized.html below .  The true cost of oil, without subsidies, is over $5.00 per gallon. I doubt that the country will continue to afford such a cross subsidy in the future

My guess is in ten years we will see ten dollar gasoline. Your guesses will vary. However, I don't think anybody sees $2.00 gasoline on the horizon.

I am researching the possibilities of setting up a system for us. We would be the first people doing this kind of project. I will be talking with everybody from both islands to get questions, and hopefully get some answers, too.

FAQ – the Frequently Asked Questions

What is NH3?

NH3 (anhydrous ammonia) is a very pungent, colorless gas that is lighter than air. When exposed to water, it becomes ammonium hydroxide, NH4OH. Ammonium hydroxide is what we commonly know as ammonia in household cleaners.

NH3 is one of the most produced chemicals in the world, with over 120 millions tons (48 billion gallons) consumed annually. Most NH3 is used for fertilizer; half the world's food is produced with NH3 fertilizers.

NH3 handles very similarly to propane. At 115 pounds pressure it is liquid, and is stored in low pressure tanks, just like propane. Some users actually use propane tanks for the gas, but that is not recommended.

The Department of Transportation considers NH3 non-flammable, as it has a very high ignition point. A typical lighter cannot ignite it. NH3 is virtually impossible to cause an explosion at normal pressures.

As a gas, the fuel is always kept under pressure in a closed system, like propane. Unlike propane, a small leak is very noticeable, and the gas floats up and away.

Turbines are big. Where would we fit them?

Obviously there is no room on-island for turbines. They would be in the water, probably on the western side where there is less wind shadow. A solid state NH3 synthesis plant should be able to fit inside the tower itself. I am proposing two big turbines to minimize the disturbance to the bottom.

What about the fishing bottom?

Obviously, nobody wants to do anything that threatens or hurts the fishing bottom. We need to do careful studies and research to make sure nothing we do will harm the fishing.

Some fisherman have asked about the electricity in the water. There have been buried underwater cables for years all over Maine, such as Vinalhaven, North Haven, Isleboro, and Isle Au Haut. I am not aware of any complaints from fishermen in these areas. The cables for the turbines would all be buried below the bottom, so traps can be set without interference.

Isn't NH3 toxic?

No. Most animals, including humans, produce NH3 naturally, and excrete the excess. However, NH3 is highly caustic, and too much can cause serious eye and lung injuries, including death.

All fuels are potentially dangerous. Propane, natural gas, and gasoline vapors are highly explosive. Gasoline causes cancer and dermatitis. Diesel creates long-term pollution when spilled and does not bio-degrade. Diesel usually has smoky exhausts. All carbon-based fuels emit carbon dioxide, and the liquid fuels emit other pollutants such as NOx, sulfur compounds, and carbon monoxide.

NH3 is detectable (intense smell) in very low concentrations, about 5 parts per million, which is way below any dangerous level. Unlike propane, NH3 leaks are not ignored.

The technology for storing and distributing NH3 is well known and understood. Everybody who works with NH3 will receive appropriate training. The safety record for NH3 is very good. More people die from lightning and personal watercraft accidents than NH3 exposure.

Is this an Island Institute project?

No. I have had conversations with several of the Island Institute people, but this is not an II project. This is an islander project. If we want to do it, we will. If we do not want to, we won't.

Coincidentally, I went to Harvard Business School with George Baker, who has been driving force for the Fox Island wind project at the Island Institute.

How does NH3 work in an engine?

There are half a dozen ways to burn NH3 in internal combustion engines. During World War II, the buses in Belgium all ran on NH3. The US military did a lot of work on running tanks and other vehicles on NH3 in the 50s, in case there was a war and a shortage of oil.

NH3 has such a high ignition point (1204 deg F) that normal compression ignition (diesel) or spark ignition (used for gasoline engines) does not work. An igniter is needed, such as diesel fuel, hydrogen, DME (dimethyl ether), or propane.

One way of running NH3 is to start a diesel engine with diesel fuel. After the engine starts, a steady supply of diesel fuel is injected to keep the engine idling. When additional power is needed, NH3 is injected into the engine. This process works with about 90-95% NH3, and the balance diesel. One big advantage of this type of system is that if there is a shortage of NH3 or some other problem, the engine still runs fine on 100% diesel just by turning the valves.

I will be happy to explain some of the other means of running engines for those who are interested.

Who is going to own this?

This project will only work if it is community-owned. Whether or not the entity will be actually a co-op or another legal form has not been determined. It will not be a part of the Matinicus Plantation Electric Company, however the project will have a power purchase agreement to supply electricity to the co-op.

Will we vote on it? How long will this take?

Yes, when there is enough information there will be a vote. This project will only move forward if the community is very strongly in favor of it. If only 60% say “Yes”, this project won't happen.

I am still gathering information, and I do not have all the answers yet so there is nothing to vote on at this point. Please send me questions or comments. The best way is to put them on this blog, or you can email me. Please click on the link below.

If we get information that shows this project is feasible, and if everybody is strongly in favor, the project will take four to five years.

Oil IS subsidized!

Some people like to claim that oil is not subsidized, unlike alternative energies. A recent article supporting this is http://seekingalpha.com/article/178787-you-say-fossil-fuels-i-say-future-fuels?source=email 

Ridiculous.

The externalities of oil production are not paid for by the consumer, but by the taxpayers. One could argue that half the Defense budget is spent on keeping "peace" in the Middle East trying to protect oil. The pollution effects of petroleum internal combustion engines are "paid for" by everybody in terms of higher disease rates. The noise pollution degrades our lives (electric chainsaws are much quieter than gas).

The US used about 290 billion gallons of petroleum last year. The defense budget was about $600 billion. If half the Defense budget is because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and patrolling the Middle East, it adds a dollar a gallon to the cost of gasoline. AAA (see http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/ ) claims that auto accidents cost $164 billion, or over 50 cents per gallon. MIT estimated in 2005 that US pollution costs about $250 billion (see http://tinyurl.com/yejjd6a). While not all pollution is from petroleum, of course, one could rationally add 10 to 40 cents per gallon just on pollution effects.

Most of the roads in this country are NOT financed by gas taxes - all the city streets and county roads are paid by property taxes. Probably 25-50% of our local law enforcement costs are for traffic enforcement, and are paid by local taxes, not fuel taxes. A significant portion our medical expenses in this country are from auto accidents, paid by everybody's insurance, not just drivers. 

In summary, the more I drive, the more it costs my neighbors to pay for the street, clients of my health care plan for their premiums, the taxpayers for law enforcement and traffic control in every town I drive in, and everybody within earshot and "lungshot" of the highways who get to hear and breathe my pollution. If I bike and walk instead, none of these costs go down for me, only for third parties. 

So petroleum, a very useful substance, creates huge amounts of pollution, soot, noise, deaths, and medical costs, without any obligations or costs.

With the exception of Norway and Canada, every major oil exporting country is despotic at best, and many are terrorist-financing bad actors, which creates "demand" for our military, DHS, the Patriot Act, and greater interference in the economy by the government. How much is the lessening of our freedom worth? Is oil paying its share?

The article also claims that coal can be clean. Ridiculous: coal has never been demonstrated to be clean. In theory, CO2 can be pumped into oil wells to increase flow, but that rarely is practical since coal-burning power plants are very rarely close enough to any oil wells. Coal to liquid technologies, such as the Fischer–Tropsch process, are generally very dirty since coal has so many contaminants, and are far from being economic. Sequestering CO2 underground has been discussed ad nauseum, and has yet be proved effective.

Coal mining also has the wonderful ability to effectively destroy the land and make it unrecoverable forever. While all mining has environmental challenges, coal is among the worst in polluting water supplies.

I am not a flaming alternative energy ignoramus. Petroleum is very valuable, and is great feedstock for many advanced plastics and chemicals. As a concentrated fuel source, it is very useful for certain transportation uses, such as aviation. It is ridiculous that we waste it for low tech uses like heating houses; that is like burning medieval manuscripts in the fireplace to keep warm. Much of our surface transportation needs can be met with NH3, electricity, natural gas, and perhaps some bio-fuels. All of our building heating can be met with non-petroleum resources.

Is the government effective in promoting alternative energy? No, of course not. It is the government! If somebody was effective, they would probably be working in the private sector. However, there is a lot the governments (plural) can do to facilitate alternative energy strategies, such as reducing the horrendous bureaucratic cost of approving new fuels, such as natural gas and NH3.

We (the US) do need a new "Interstate" Electric Grid. Our electrical infrastructure is similar to our highways in the 1950s, dependent on local states and counties with very little coordination. Eisenhower made a national Interstate Highway system which has been a huge positive. We need to have a uniform Federal tax (just like the gas tax) to create a national energy grid infrastructure linking all our energy resources, from the hydro in the Northwest and Canada, solar in the deserts, and winds offshore and in the Midwest, as well as our scattered coal plants. A national-scale grid would need to very high voltage (megavolt or higher) and DC current to minimize current losses. Major sections should be underground for security and land conservation, as China has been doing, see http://www.dlpower.cn/list.asp?id=189.  We need to break free from 50 state Public Utility Commissions and their provincialism.